ITAT Deletes Rs 2.06 Crore Addition Under Section 68 for Unsecured Loans:

ITAT Deletes Rs 2.06 Crore Addition Under Section 68 for Unsecured Loans

The ITAT Mumbai holds that primary evidence of loan transactions shifts the onus to the AO.

ITAT Cites AO’s Failure to Verify Lenders

authorSaimadateOct 17, 2026
Last update on Oct 17, 2026

The assessee is The Stock and Bond Trading Company which was engaged in the business of trading in shares and derivatives. For Assessment Year 2013–14, it filed its return declaring nil income. During scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the AO made additions towards unsecured loans under Section 68 and assessed the total income at Rs 5,59,58,524.

Major Relief in Arbitration Case: MCIA Denies Rs 908 Crore Statement Claim Made by Allied Silica Against Tata Chemicals

In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) to examine additional evidence furnished by the assessee. After obtaining a remand report from the AO, the CIT(A) deleted part of the addition but sustained Rs 2,06,70,000 relating to six lenders, holding that their creditworthiness had not been established. The assessee challenged the sustained addition before the Tribunal.  

MCA and ICSI to Hold User Awareness Session on Form AOC-4 Filing Amid Glitches on MCA-21 Version-3 Portal

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the transactions, by providing all the sufficient documents thereby shifting the onus to the AO. It found that the AO had not made any independent inquiry or attempted to verify the lenders, despite having their confirmations, PAN details and addresses. The Tribunal further observed that the absence of income-tax returns, by itself, was not a convincing ground to treat the assessee as having failed to establish the loan transactions in the circumstances of the case. 

Pinarayi Vijayan Moves Supreme Court Challenging Kerala High Court Order to Register FIR in CMRL Alleged Bribery Case

The Tribunal held that the appellate order sustaining the addition of Rs 2,06,70,000 under Section 68 was not sustainable. Accordingly, it set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the entire disputed addition.

About Author

LinkedIn

Saima

Content Writer

Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
553
Up Next

Loading suggestions…